Aslani v. McCarthy

Filing 51

MEMORANDUM Order: For the reasons stated in this memorandum order, the sole remaining defendant Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois is granted leave to file an Amended Answer on or before August 24, 2017. Signed by the Honorable Milton I. Shadur on 8/10/2017:Mailed notice(clw, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION MARYAM ASLANI, Plaintiff, v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS, AMY TRUELOVE, KATHLEEN KASHIMA, and TIMOTHY MURPHY, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 16 C 10476 MEMORANDUM ORDER Counsel for the sole remaining defendant, Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois (designated by counsel as the "University"), have filed the University's Answer (Dkt. No. 49) and Affirmative Defenses (Dkt. No. 50) to the Amended Complaint brought by Maryam Aslani ("Aslani"). Although this Court has not sought to be exhaustive in addressing those responsive pleadings, more than one aspect of counsel's filings indicates that counsel would do well to read and to give consideration to the several aspects of the App'x to State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Riley, 199 F.R.D. 276 (N.D. Ill. 2001). For one thing, there is no justification for counsel's departure from the straightforward disclaimer prescribed by Fed. R. Civ. P. ("Rule") 8(b)(5). Accordingly Answer ¶¶ 1, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21 and 27 are stricken, but with leave granted to file an Amended Answer correcting that repeated flaw on or before August 24, 2017. In addition, Answer ¶¶ 40 and 41 inappropriately fail to respond to the corresponding allegations in the Amended Complaint because each of those allegations "merely states a legal conclusion." That is an impermissible basis for a nonresponse, so that the offending paragraphs are also stricken, and the error should be corrected in the Amended Answer. Finally, both aspects of the University's Affirmative Defenses are problematic. Here are the errors that must also be corrected by the same date: 1. In the First Affirmative Defense the University sets out a reason that does not comply with the principle underlying Rule 8(c) and the caselaw applying that Rule, for the University's assertion there is at odds with Amended Complaint ¶ 42. 2. As for the Second Affirmative Defense, which asserts an Eleventh Amendment bar to any claim for monetary damage against the University, it is unclear whether counsel's position is that the assertion would bar Aslani from obtaining relief under Title IX, 20 U.S.C. § 1681. That should be cleared up in any rewrite of the Affirmative Defenses. __________________________________________ Milton I. Shadur Senior United States District Judge Date: August 10, 2017 -2-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?